The Commission will consider a request for continuance to a later date. The Commission may choose to continue the item to the date proposed below, to continue the item to another date, or to hear the item on this calendar.

1. 2003.1110T (I. WILSON: (415) 558-6163)

REQUIRED SECOND MEANS OF EGRESS - Ordinance Amending the San Francisco Planning Code to Allow a Required Second Means of Egress; Adoption of an ordinance amending the San Francisco Planning Code by adding a new section 136(c)(4)(A)(i-v) to allow certain stairways that are a required second means of egress under the Building Code, as permitted obstructions in the rear yard. The California Building Code no longer allows fire escapes as a second means of egress in most cases. This proposed text amendment provides an exemption to meet the requirements of the Building Code. This ordinance also includes changes to Section 311 and 312 to require neighbor notification for the addition of these stairways.

Preliminary Recommendation: Recommend approval of the ordinance to the Board of Supervisors.

(Proposed for Continuance to April 22, 2004)

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to April 22, 2004.

AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Feldstein, S. Lee, W. Lee

ABSENT: Boyd and Hughes

2. 2003.1164D (M. WOODS: (415) 558-6315)

6725 CALIFORNIA STREET - south side between 29th and 30th Avenues, Lot 47 in Assessor's Block 1404 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2003.03.13.9612 proposing to alter the existing two-story, single-family dwelling by raising the building approximately eight feet in order to create a new ground floor to contain a two-car garage, with a new dwelling unit behind, and expanding the building to the front, rear and sides. The subject property is located in an RM-1 (Residential, Mixed, Low Density) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and approve the project with modifications.

NOTE: On January 22, 2004, following public testimony, the Commission closed the public hearing. The Commission expressed concerns that statements about preserving this structure or the essence of it are not reflected in the plans submitted. Item continued to March 25, 2004. Public hearing will remain open on any new information presented.

(Proposed for Continuance to April 22, 2004)

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to April 22, 2004.

AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Feldstein, S. Lee, W. Lee

ABSENT: Boyd and Hughes

3a. 2003.1102D (J. PURVIS: (415) 558-6354)

361 ELSIE STREET - east side south of Cortland Avenue; Lot 023 in Assessor's Block 5676 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under Planning Commission policy requiring review of all housing demolition permits, of Demolition Permit Application No. 2003.08.08.1577 proposing the demolition of a one-story, single-family dwelling in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) Use District, a 40-X Height and Bulk District and within the Bernal Heights Special Use District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Pending.

(Proposed for Continuance to April 15, 2004)

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to April 15, 2004.

AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Feldstein, S. Lee, W. Lee

ABSENT: Boyd and Hughes

3b. 2003.1103D (J. PURVIS: (415) 558-6354)

361 ELSIE STREET - east side south of Cortland Avenue; Lot 023 in Assessor's Block 5676 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under Planning Commission policy requiring review of all replacement structures following residential demolition, of Building Permit Application No. 2003.08.08.1581, proposing the construction of a three-story-over-garage two-family dwelling in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) Use District, a 40-X Height and Bulk District and within the Bernal Heights Special Use District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Pending.

(Proposed for Continuance to April 15, 2004)

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to April 15, 2004.

AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Feldstein, S. Lee, W. Lee

ABSENT: Boyd and Hughes

4. 2002.0677D (J. IONIN (415) 558-6309)

679 40TH AVENUE - west side between Balboa and Anza Streets; Lot 020 in Assessor's Block 1583 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 9909801, proposing a vertical and horizontal addition to accommodate a second dwelling unit with a second off-street parking space, to an existing single-family dwelling in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the project.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of January 22, 2004)

(Proposed for Continuance to April 1, 2004)

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to April 1, 2004.

AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Feldstein, S. Lee, W. Lee

ABSENT: Boyd and Hughes

5. 2003.1217D (J. IONIN: (415) 558-6309)

342 21ST STREET - east side between Geary and Clement Streets; Lot 033 in Assessor's Block 1452 - Request for Discretionary Review of Permit Application No. 2003.08.07.1409, proposing to add two units to the existing single-family dwelling by constructing new third and fourth floors, and a rear addition in an RM-1 (Mixed Residential, Low Density) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve as proposed.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of March 11, 2004)

(Proposed for Continuance to May 13, 2004)

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to May 13, 2004.

AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Feldstein, S. Lee, W. Lee

ABSENT: Boyd and Hughes

6. 2003.0106D (M. WOODS: (415) 558-6315)

1910-12 STEINER STREET - east side between Wilmot and Bush Streets; Lot 018 in Assessor's Block 0659 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of all dwelling unit mergers, of Building Permit Application No. 2003.06.16.7169, proposing to merge two dwelling units to a single-family residence in an RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family) District and 40-X Height and Bulk District.

They received two pieces of correspondence: one from Supervisor Gonzalez regarding the Eastern Neighborhoods and most specifically the NEMIZ Industrial Zone, the other from Jim Meko regarding the boundaries of the South of Market. These questions had been raised by other Commissioners.

- With the feed back that she has received, she feels that it is important to reopen the Eastern Neighborhoods hearing before moving forward.

- She asked the present Commissioners to give her their opinion and then open the hearing again.

- She does not want staff to feel "beat up on" but she would like to meet with staff as soon as possible.

Commissioner Feldstein Responded:

- She feels that there is a need to reopen the hearing on the NEMIZ.

- She would like to see that as soon as possible.

- She requested a copy of any correspondence regarding this item to all Commissioners.

Commissioner Sue Lee:

- She agrees with reopening the hearing to look at this item as a whole.

Re: Personnel Matter:

- She wants to know what progress has been made regarding an employee who is also working for the City of Berkley.

Commissioner Antonini:

- He also received the letter from Supervisor Gonzalez.

- If the consensus of the Commission is to reopen the hearing, he would be willing to participate. He is not to much in agreement but he would be willing if the Commission agrees to reopen it.

- He has not received the letter from Jim Meko.

C. DIRECTOR'S REPORT

8. Director's Announcements

Re: Housing Element

- He will provide the Commission with everything that they have regarding this.

- There have been a number of requests for continuance of this item and he is considering this.

- If there needs to be time for further discussion, he want to allow this to happen.

Re: Mission and South of Market

- He will consult with staff to determine what kind of notice needs to be done, what the calendar looks like, etc.

- Sooner rather than later would be best.

- He will set up meetings with staff and with any of the Commissioners as long as there are no more than three Commissioners at one time.

Re: Personnel Matter

- He realizes that it is a personnel matter.

- He is taking this matter quite seriously and is pursuing it vigorously.

9. Review of Past Week's Events at the Board of Supervisors and Board of Appeals

BOS -

Full Board of Supervisors Hearing of March 23, 2004:

- He represented staff and the Commission regarding the Formula Retail legislation.

- He expressed to the BOS staff's concerns about our ability to implement the formula retail proposals.

- The BOS was cognizant of staff's concerns. Some of the Supervisors recognized that this might not be a perfect ordinance but the ones that voted in favor of it felt that it served the purpose of providing notice of formula retail. The Supervisors voted +8-3 (Supervisors Hall, Ma and Alioto-Pier voted against the proposal).

- From a staff point of view, the Supervisors heard our concerns about the work load issue and that Section 312 in many ways was duplicative and would create an extensive work load. Formula retail would overburden staff.

- There will be a meeting this afternoon with Supervisor Gonzalez's staff regarding this.

- There is word that Supervisor Gonzalez will introduce amendments to revoke the pharmacy and coffee shop provisions of Section 312 immediately.

D. REGULAR CALENDAR

10. 1999.0233E (B. WYCKO: (415) 558-5972)

833 - 881 JAMESTOWN AVENUE - Appeal of Preliminary Negative Declaration. The project sponsor proposes construction of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) that would consist of 198 one-, two- and three-bedroom market-rate condominiums on an approximately 6.9-acre lot, located at 833-881 Jamestown Avenue on Assessor's Block 4991, Lot 277, on the northern slope of Bayview Hill. The site is currently used as an overflow parking lot for events at Candlestick Park, which is approximately one-third of a mile southeast of the project site. The site is bordered by Jamestown Avenue (and single-family homes on the north side of Jamestown) to the north, another vacant lot to the east that also is used for parking for major events at Candlestick Park, the hillside to the south, and single-family housing to the west. Although the area proposed for development is mostly flat, development would require excavation of up to approximately 30 vertical feet at the base of the hill. The project would consist of 11 separate three- and four-story buildings: seven buildings of 12 to 18 units each along Jamestown Avenue and four buildings to the rear, at the base of the hillside. Of these latter four structures, two (36 units each) would be built atop one-story gated parking garages, while smaller buildings (one of eight and one of 10 units) would flank the garages. A total of 216 independently accessible parking spaces would be provided. The proposed project would include landscaping along Jamestown Avenue, construction of a 10-foot-wide sidewalk, two off-street freight loading areas, and about 28,900 sq. ft. of common open space, including two rear yards at the base of the hillside totaling about 7,250 sq. ft. and podium- and ground-level patios. The project also would remedy an existing drainage problem on Bayview Hill above the project site, on Recreation and Park Department land. The project site is located within the South Bayshore Plan area, in an RH-2 (Two-Family) Use District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. As a PUD, the project would require review and approval by the City Planning Commission pursuant to Sections 303 and 304 of the Planning Code.

- Has there been enough study on what would be the affects of this project on the current residents of the area?

- Every day will be game day if this project is approved.

- The parking that will be displaced on game day will intensify an already bad situation.

(+) Ron Miguel

- He is here as Chair of the Housing Action Coalition

- The idea of a mix of single family and multiple family units works.

- There are various public transportation systems there including the Third Street Light Rail.

- Regarding the parking, this issue should be dealt with completely as well.

(+) Kate White - Director of the Housing Action Coalition

- She is very pleased that the 12 percent of affordable units proposed on site.

- The project will be one block from the Third Street Light rail and the project will be finished around the same time as the Light Rail system.

- She appreciates the time that the project sponsor took to discuss issues with the Housing Action Coalition.

- She urges the Commission to support this project.

(-) Holly Ames

- She lives on Jamestown Street.

- She feels that this project should be reduced in size.

- Development in the Bay View is fine if it is a project that fits with the neighborhood.

- It is disconcerting to see that in the Executive Summary the Planning Department has a rebuttal for all of the issues expressed to them.

- This project is about four or five blocks from Third Street and not one block as mentioned by the previous speaker.

- There are several problems in the area and she feels that people will not buy these units too easily.

(+) Espanola Jackson

- She lives three blocks from Jamestown Street.

- Regarding training, people have been trained to death but there are no jobs.

- She believes that her community does not get the same services as other areas.

(+) Deven Richardson

- He read a letter from George Newcort who had to leave early but is in support of the project.

(+) Flavia Krasilchik - Greenbelt Alliance

- Green Belt Alliance supports this project.

- This development contributes to many important roles.

- She commends the project sponsor for including City Car Share parking spots, bicycle stalls and planting various trees along the street.

- Regarding massing, the project has changed several times to address this concern.

- She is an architect and a Planner. She believes that the problems with this project are the 49er's games. Something more should be done about public transportation.

(+) Arelious Walker - Senior Pastor of the True Hope Church in Christ

- In connection with the Housing Authority, they have been able to provide housing for many people.

- He was impressed with the quality of staff from the Planning Department.

- He feels that this project has met all the requirements.

- This is a tremendous project.

- At some point during this project, it would be important to talk about employment.

(-) Kathy Bermingham

- She is a teacher and lives in Petaluma.

- She cannot afford to live in San Francisco.

- This project sounds as if it will be affordable to people like her, allowing us the opportunity to live in San Francisco.

- She understands people's concerns about traffic.

(+) Jesse Baldain - Embassy Realty

- He supports the project since it will provide jobs and housing to the community.

- He understands that the parking is an issue but that should be taken care of.

(+) Bob Lee - Embassy Realty

- He has listened compassionately to all the issues stated by the public.

- He does not know how the Commission will separate the problems with worldly problems.

- This Commission has been outstanding as well as staff but all of the issues mentioned will not be solved by this project.

- He believes that staff has research all of the problems related to this project.

- There is no basis that this project should be delayed.

(+) Coy McAllister

- This project should be implemented.

- This area has not been developed since he was a child.

- Now there is someone who will develop this area sooner or later.

- All the issues have been looked at.

- It is time for this project to move forward.

(-) Rush Sturges - Carpenter's Union

- He has been a member of the Carpenter's Union for 35 years.

- The Carpenter's Union will be building a training center on Illinois Street.

- This project should be constructed with skilled labor.

(-) Betty Krietemeyer - Carpenter's Union

- She is a carpenter's union apprentice.

- She does not have a job currently.

- She does not agree with work done by non union members.

- She encourages the Commission to consider only projects that support union workers.

(+) Sean Kreghran

- This project was initially submitted over 15 years ago.

- Three administrations later there is not one housing unit on this site.

- There is currently a housing problem but the Commission cannot do the work alone.

(+) Mack Burton

- He plans to use people from Young Community Developers.

- He supports this project.

- He built a house recently and used Young Community Developers.

- He has about 50 people who will be working on this project.

- He is happy that he started at the very low end and now is able to bring back to his community.

(+) Redmond Lyons

- He is a contractor and a developer.

- This project involves 6.9 acres of vacant land.

- He lives in the area and goes to Candlestick to see the 49ers, he also goes to Pac Bell Park to see the Giants.

- There is a lot of money invested in the Third Street Light Rail. This line will cover a large area not just one block.

- He hopes that this project will be approved.

(+) Charles Breidenger

- After all the controversy everyone begins to enjoy the projects.

- The Planning Department has people who are experts and know what they are doing.

- This project will help some of the traffic congestions of people driving in and out of San Francisco.

- He resents being slandered by the unions.

(+) Jim Keith

- He supports this project because this City has a severe housing shortage.

- More housing needs to be brought on line.

- When there is a housing complex there [at the proposed site], MUNI will not park on that street.

- There are many issues that are not specific to this project.

- This developer is providing less density than what is allowed.

- This is the right way to develop.

(+) Angus McCarthy

- He is a homeowner and developer of this community.

- It is really encouraging to hear opinions from both sides.

- He is a 49ers fan and feels that the 49ers should be hear to state their opinions as well.

- He feels that the density is not that high.

- He feels that this project should be approved.

(+) Grace Keily

- She supports the 198 units of family housing in an area that needs housing and home ownership.

- The project sponsor has had about 30 neighborhood meetings and has submitted three full revisions on the plans.

- This project has been around for many years.

- These units will have 12 percent of Supervisor Leno's inclusionary housing, which is 24 units of below market rate.

(+) Mike Cassidy

- Regarding the height of the buildings, this project is not the Geneva projects.

- This project could have been larger.

- This project has been around for 15 years. This is a disgrace.

(+) Richie Hart

- He supports this project.

- There is a major housing crisis going on and it is getting worse and worse.

- He urged the Commission to support this project.

(+) Doug Cefali

- He supports the project.

- This project has been on going for 15 years and this tells you why San Francisco's property is so high.

- The process is so difficult.

- The density of this project is very good. It is the right fit for the area.

- The project sponsor has revised this project three times. This tell you a lot about him.

(+) Brian Spiers

- He supports the project.

- He was born and raised in San Francisco.

- The project is at a stage that the density level is down.

- The developer has met all the criteria and this is a positive addition to the neighborhood.

(+) Brett Gladstone

- He has no legal or financial connection with the developer.

- He worked with the developer about 10 years ago.

- The units that this developer has built before have been great.

(+) Leo Cassidy

- He supports this project.

- The developer has been more than accommodating to the neighbor's concerns.

- This project is good for the City and he urged the Commission to approve it.

(+) Bruce Bauman

- This is a housing opportunity site and the City needs housing.

- He has been associated with this project for 15 years.

- This project needs to be approved as soon as possible.

- The 49rrs should deal with the parking and traffic issues. Fifteen years ago there were game day issues for both the Giants and the 49ers. Now there are only 11 games to deal with.

(+) Dennis Carlin

- This is a well thought out project.

- The developer has spent a lot of time trying to accommodate the neighbors.

- This neighborhood does need help.

- People want to be homeowners.

- He hopes that the Commission will approve this project.

(+) Joe O'Donaghue

- This project has gone on for too long.

- This Commission has been one of the best. They have been consistent with realizing what the problems are.

- Residential Builders have completed many excellent projects. Many of these projects have been union.

- They are proud to be what they are. He was proud to be a member of the Carpenter's Union when it was really a union.

- This project is a good project and it should not become a victim of their disputes.

(+) Keith Richardson

- The developer lives in the community so he is not coming from another state.

- The developer has also held and attended several community meetings.

- This project would provide him an opportunity to purchase a home.

(-) Shawn Leonard, Carpenter's Union

- She has worked on various projects of the Residential Builders and they have identified some problems.

- The Carpenter's Union has worked long and hard so that all carpenter's make decent wages in decent environments.

- This is the only thing that they are worried about.

- She cannot work with any developer that does not have good working conditions for their workers.

(+) Roger Ryan

- He supports the project.

- The project sponsor has taken out 12 units to reduce the density. This is almost like "shooting yourself in the foot."

- He knows the project sponsor and knows that he will employ locally.

- This area of town is affordable for everyone.

- The project sponsor had 30 meetings with the local residents. He has been more than accommodating.

(+) Dick Millet

- He lives on Potrero Hill.

- He is finding that this project should be a "no brainer." It is a little bit too small. There should be more units there.

- He knows that Bay View is zoned single family but this project is a good contribution to the neighborhood.

- On the waterfront the Commission just approved doubling the height limit of high rise towers and this is not that high or dense.

(+) Elizabeth Moore

- This project is an opportunity and a test. It is an opportunity to implement the smart growth and the sustainable development principals that are repeated over and over in every single document guiding land use policy in this City including the General Plan, the South Bayshore Area Plan and the Planning Code.

- It is a test of whether the analysis and conclusions of legions of experts, months and years of discussions and debate among city policy makers like yourselves, and pages and pages of City policy have all been for nothing. Or, a test of whether the city can put it's money where it's money is and actually act to implement it's excellent planning policies.

(+) Peter McGuire

- He has lived in San Francisco for 18 years.

- This project has been around for many years.

- The project sponsor has had 30 meetings with the residents.

- Due to the delays and changes, the cost of the project has skyrocketed.

(+) Bryan Malone

- He came to San Francisco about 23 years ago.

- This project should be approved because it will allow affordable units to be on the market.

- This is a simple decision. The Commission should just approve this project.

ACTION: Negative Declaration Upheld

AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Feldstein, S. Lee, W. Lee

ABSENT: Boyd and Hughes

MOTION: 16753

11a. 1999.0233EC (J. PURVIS: (415) 558-6354)

833-881 JAMESTOWN AVENUE - south side from Ingalls to Griffith Streets; Lot 277 in Assessor's Block 4991- Request for adoption of findings under CEQA Code for a Planned Unit Development with up to 198 dwelling units, including one-, two- and three-bedroom units within eleven separate three- and four-story buildings. The project would include up to 216 off-street parking spaces within two garages at the base of two interior residential buildings, and two screened off-street freight loading spaces. The site is 6.9 acres on the northern slope of Bayview Hill and is within an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) Use District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Adopt CEQA findings

SPEAKER(S): Same as those listed for Item 10.

ACTION: Adopted CEQA findings

AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Feldstein, S. Lee, W. Lee

ABSENT: Boyd and Hughes

MOTION: 16754

11b. 1999.0233EC (J. PURVIS: (415) 558-6354)

833-881 JAMESTOWN AVENUE - south side from Ingalls to Griffith Streets; Lot 277 in Assessor's Block 4991 - Request for Conditional Use authorization under Sections 209.1(g), 303 and 304 of the Planning Code for a Planned Unit Development with up to 198 dwelling units, including one-, two- and three-bedroom units within eleven separate three- and four-story buildings. The project would include up to 216 off-street parking spaces within two garages at the base of two interior residential buildings, and two screened off-street freight loading spaces. The site is 6.9 acres on the northern slope of Bayview Hill and is within an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) Use District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

(Continued from Regular Meeting of March 4, 2004)

SPEAKER(S): Same as those listed for Item 10.

ACTION: Approved with amended Findings and Conditions:

1) On the finding related to the first source hiring program: project sponsor has agreed voluntarily to comply with the first source hiring program.

2) On the second sentence of the condition should read as follows: "prior to the issuance of any building permit to construct or a first addendum to the site permit, project sponsor should have a first source hiring construction and employment program approved by the first source hiring administrator and evidence in writing. In the event that the Director of Planning and the first source hiring administrator agree that a later date for the employment program is preferable, they may do so.

3) On the condition that requires a contact for the community provided by the project sponsor regarding any issues that come up during construction: the project sponsor shall conduct meetings once a month throughout construction.

AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Feldstein, S. Lee, W. Lee

ABSENT: Boyd and Hughes

MOTION: 16755

12a. 2001.1039E!KBMZX (M. LUELLEN: (415-558-6478)

55 NINTH STREET - East side between Mission and Market Streets, Lots 063 and 064 in Assessor's Block 3701 - Request for adoption of findings under CEQA to construct a 12-story office building with approximately 268,000 gross square feet. The new building would be approximately 198 feet tall, including mechanical penthouse, and would have a two-level below grade parking garage with about 126 parking spaces. The Project also includes approximately 25,392 square feet of open space and two loading docks.

Preliminary Recommendation: Adopt CEQA findings

(Continued from Regular Meeting of March 4, 2004)

SPEAKER(S):

(+) David Cincotta - Representing the Project Sponsor

- He thanked staff for the three years of assistance to get this project to this stage.

(+) Denise Burian - State Compensation Insurance

- They have been in business for 90 years and in San Francisco for 50 years.

- They have met with their neighbors extensively to address their concerns.

- They are opening their retail spaces at this location.

- They will also have a cafeteria that will be open to the public.

(+) Steve Worthington - HOK Architects

- They are very proud of this project and are happy to have been working with the City and State Compensation Insurance Fund.

- They are remedying some problems with the older building. They are internalizing the major services for large trucks which will enhance the movement of traffic in the Civic Center area.

- The project most importantly has engaged the lead format for sustainable design.

- There will be an enhanced day lighting scheme for workers, excellent air quality, etc.

- He displayed some renderings, models and building material samples.

ACTION: Adopted CEQA findings

AYES: Bradford Bell, Feldstein, S. Lee, W. Lee

ABSENT: Antonini, Boyd and Hughes

MOTION: 16756

12b. 2001.1039E!KBMZX (M. LUELLEN: (415-558-6478)

55 NINTH STREET - East side between Mission and Market Streets, Lots 063 and 064 in Assessor's Block 3701 - Request that the Planning Commission adopt a Resolution recommending to the Board of Supervisors to amend Map 5 of the Downtown Area Plan of the General Plan, for reclassification of the subject property from 120-X to 200-S Height and Bulk District. The project proposes a new building approximately 198 feet tall, including mechanical penthouse, and would have a two-level below grade parking garage with about 126 parking spaces, and up to 268,000 gross square feet of office. The Project also includes approximately 25,392 square feet of remodeled open space.

Preliminary Recommendation: Adopt resolution recommending to the Board of Supervisors to amend Map 5 of the Downtown Area Plan of the General Plan for reclassification of the subject property from 120-X to 200-S Height and Bulk District

(Continued from Regular Meeting of March 4, 2004)

SPEAKER(S): Same as those listed for Item 12a.

ACTION: Approved

AYES: Bradford Bell, Feldstein, S. Lee, W. Lee

ABSENT: Antonini, Boyd and Hughes

RESOLUTION: 16757

12c. 2001.1039E!KBMZX (M. LUELLEN: (415-558-6478)

55 NINTH STREET - East side between Mission and Market Streets, Lots 063 and 064 in Assessor's Block 3701 - Request that the Planning Commission adopt a Resolution recommending to the Board of Supervisors as amendment to Zoning Map 7H of the Planning Code for reclassification of the subject property from 120-X to 200-S Height and Bulk District, in connection with the new office building described above.

Preliminary Recommendation: Adopt resolution recommending to the Board of Supervisors to amend Zoning Map 7H of the Planning Code for reclassification of the subject property from 120-X to 200-S Height and Bulk District.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of March 4, 2004)

SPEAKER(S): Same as those listed for Item 12a.

ACTION: Approved

AYES: Bradford Bell, Feldstein, S. Lee, W. Lee

ABSENT: Antonini, Boyd and Hughes

RESOLUTION: 16758

12d. 2001.1039E!KBMZX (M. LUELLEN: (415-558-6478)

55 NINTH STREET - East side between Mission and Market Streets, Lots 063 and 064 in Assessor's Block 3701 - Request for approval under Planning Code Section 309 for Determinations of Compliance and Request for Exceptions (including wind, bulk limits, and replacement parking) to construct a 12-story office building with approximately 268,000 gross square feet. The new building would be approximately 198 feet tall, including mechanical penthouse, and would have a two-level below grade parking garage with about 126 parking spaces. The Project also includes approximately 25,392 square feet of open space.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

(Continued from Regular Meeting of March 4, 2004)

SPEAKER(S): Same as those listed for Item 12a.

ACTION: Approved with Conditions as Amended:

1) Page 25 under conference facility, the sentence should be rewritten to read: "The Project Sponsor shall make the conference facility located on the ground floor of the proposed building available to non profit organizations at a fee to cover the actual cost of using this space when not in use by the project sponsor." This sentence is also located in Section B on the same page.

2) If there are repetitive conditions of approval, staff shall make sure that they are in the appropriate motions.

3) Page 23 of the 309 Motion, the condition should read: "the project sponsor shall continue to work with the department on certain aspects of the design including those, but not limited to the items of Part 3 below"

AYES: Bradford Bell, Feldstein, S. Lee, W. Lee

ABSENT: Antonini, Boyd and Hughes

MOTION: 16759

12e. 2001.1039E!KBMZX (M. LUELLEN: (415-558-6478)

55 NINTH STREET - East side between Mission and Market Streets, Lots 063 and 064 in Assessor's Block 3701 - Request for approval under Planning Code Section 321 for Determinations of Compliance to construct a 12-story office approximately 268,000 gross square feet. The new building would be approximately 198 feet tall, including mechanical penthouse, and would have a two-level below grade parking garage with about 126 parking spaces. The Project also includes approximately 25,392 square feet of open space.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approve annual allocation request.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of March 4, 2004)

SPEAKER(S): Same as those listed for Item 12a.

ACTION: Approved

AYES: Bradford Bell, Feldstein, S. Lee, W. Lee

ABSENT: Antonini, Boyd and Hughes

MOTION: 16760

13. 2003.1132D (T. TAM: (415) 558-6325)

1459 24TH AVENUE - west side between Kirkham and Judah Streets, Lot 12 in Assessor's Block 1829 - Request for Discretionary Review for Building Permit Application No. 2003.07.17.9719, proposing to alter a previously approved construction of a new single-family dwelling, specifically to correct the dimension of the adjacent property to the north on the site permit. The property is located in the RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and approve the project with modifications.

Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and Disapprove the merger.

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to May 6, 2004

AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Feldstein, S. Lee, W. Lee

ABSENT: Boyd and Hughes

15. 2003.1265D (K. MCGEE: (415) 558-6367)

852 TREAT STREET - west side between 21st and 22nd Streets; Lot 042 in Assessor's Block 3613 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the planning Commission's policy requiring review of dwelling unit mergers, of Permit Application No. 2003.11.13.0091, proposing to merge two legal dwelling units into one legal dwelling unit. The subject property is located in an RH-3 (Residential, House, Three Dwelling Unit District) and in a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do Not Take Discretionary Review and Approve As Proposed.

SPEAKER(S):

(+) Brett Gladstone - Representing Project Sponsor

- The project sponsor needs about 250 square feet for her art work which is very large in size.

- This is a potentially affordable unit, but the policy of encouraging small affordable units is outweighed by other Commission policies and General Plan policies.

- The rear yard cottage dates back to about 1870, making it one of the oldest in the Mission. This was originally built as a single family home. Many lots in the Mission are still single family residences.

- This proposal is to restore the space to the original historic use. The area not lived in would be for artist space.

- If the project sponsor is allowed to do this merger she will apply for a listing in the California Historical Resources Survey to promote it's long standing historical use.

- The unit in question has been vacant for the last 15 years.

(+) B.J. Frederickson - Project Sponsor

- She is an artist who paints large sets for films and local theatres.

- She and her friend own the property.

- The property was so bad when they purchased it that they were able to purchased it for the land value only.

- There have been tenants living in the space below but she had to evict because the house needed major repairs and the person could not live there during the renovation.

- She never rented the space again because first she intended for her mom to live there but unfortunately she passed away before that could happen. Then she decided not to rent anymore because the previous tenant had complained about late hour noises she made trying to finish her art work.

- She hopes that the Commission will approve this merger so she can continue to produce her art.

(+) Marge Williams

- She read a letter from Jennifer Clinard who is an artist friend and is in support of the merger. B.J. is a fine artist who produces a lot of art work of local theatre companies.

- She also submitted other letters from neighbors who support the merger.

ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and approved the Dwelling Unit Merger with the understanding that criteria 2 is neither met nor not met and criteria 4 is not met.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve demolition.

SPEAKER(S):

(+) David Silverman

- He thanked staff for their hard work.

- The new home will have two off-street parking spaces.

- The project would have been approved administratively if the new Discretionary Review policies were in affect.

- There is no opposition to this project.

- The project fully complies with the Residential Design Guidelines.

- The existing building is warped.

- This project will provide much needed family housing.

- There are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances

ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and approved the demolition.

AYES: Bradford Bell, Feldstein, S. Lee, W. Lee

ABSENT: Antonini, Boyd and Hughes

16b. 2003.0545D (T. WANG: (415) 558-6335)

505 - 507 KIRKHAM STREET - south side between 9th and 10th Avenues; Lot 045 in Assessor's Block 1855 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of new residential building in association with residential demolition, of Building Permit Application No. 2000.01.12.908, to construct a new two-story over garage, two-family dwelling in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the project as submitted.

SPEAKER(S): Same as those listed for Item 16a.

ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and approved with the following amendments: 1) require a Notice of Special Restrictions to ensure that the building will only be a 2-unit building; 2) staircase should be an open railing staircase; 3) remove one ground floor vanity.

AYES: Bradford Bell, Feldstein, S. Lee, W. Lee

ABSENT: Antonini, Boyd and Hughes

17. 2002.0914R (D. ARGUMEDO: (415) 558-6284)

675 TOWNSEND STREET. south side between 7th and 8th Streets; Lot 007 in Assessor Block 3799. The project is related to Planning Case No. 198.455C, a mixed use development of 148 dwelling units, approximately 35,000 square feet of ground floor commercial space and 256 parking spaces in two basement levels. Due to the presence of a Caltrain easement, the originally proposed 7'-6" wide sidewalk along Townsend Street would be reduced to 4'-6" to maintain a minimum distance from an existing rail line in the Townsend Street right-of-way. The reduced sidewalk width is less than the Department of Public Works' minimum 6-foot sidewalk width standard. The subject property (675 Townsend Street) is in an M-2 (Heavy Industrial) District and an 40-X/50-X (Height and Bulk) District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Find the proposal not in conformity with the General Plan

(Continued from Regular Meeting of March 18, 2004)

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to April 1, 2004

AYES: Bradford Bell, Feldstein, S. Lee, W. Lee

ABSENT: Antonini, Boyd and Hughes

18. 2003.1284D (D. DIBARTOLO: (415) 558-6291)

1801-1803 STOCKTON STREET - northwest corner of Greenwich and Stockton Streets: Lot 008 in Assessor's Block 0076 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2003.08.19.2503S, proposing to construct a new enclosed stairwell at the north-side building wall. The proposal also includes facade alterations at both the Greenwich and Stockton Street frontages in an RM-1 (Residential, Mixed, Low-Density) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the project as submitted.

SPEAKER(S):

(+) Mimi Molian - Project Sponsor

- The purpose of the addition of the stairwell is to connect approximately 370 square feet of basement space to the unit.

- She wants to accommodate her mother who will be moving in with her.

- There is no sun or light issue involved because the roof of the addition will be below the window sills of her property and her neighbors.

- She did not purchase the property for it's aesthetic value.

- Since much of the stucco is being removed, she thought it would be an opportunity to add another finish to the exterior of the building.

- She met with the Telegraph Hill Dwellers and they ensured her that they were not going to contest the project. Since then they have changed their mind.

- He requested that the roof line be sloped or add some type of parapet.

- Regarding the drain in front of the stairwell, he would like to be ensured that it will be moved and the concrete all around be re-done to make sure that there is no water leakage or damage.

(-) Gerry Crowley - Telegraph Hill Dwellers

- There is a letter from the telegraph Hill Dwellers Association that expresses their concern about the changes in the facade of the proposed project.

- If the proposed exterior is permitted it will stand out like a "sore thumb."

- The type of finish and quality of the building materials must be compatible with those used in the surrounding area.

- When using this type of material, close inspections should be required to make sure they will be applied to the building correctly.

- It is best to use the same materials.

ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and approved the project.

AYES: Bradford Bell, Feldstein, S. Lee, W. Lee

ABSENT: Antonini, Boyd and Hughes

19. 2003.1235D (D. DIBARTOLO: (415) 558-6291)

2760 DIVISADERO STREET - southeast corner of Divisadero and Green Street: Lot 020 in Assessor's Block 0953 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2003.05.02.3712, proposing to: (1) construct a new two car garage at the Green Street frontage; (2) expand an existing second-floor sunroom by enclosing an existing rear deck, and; (3) install a clear glass wind screen at the perimeter of the third floor front deck in an RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the project as submitted.

SPEAKER(S):

(-) Jim Lazarus

- He requested from the Commission take Discretionary Review because the project will cause light, air and view impacts on the DR requestor's home.

- There was previous construction on the subject property but through negotiations and compromises, both owners were able to deal with the issues.

- This addition will be unsightly and will be difficult to view.

- He urged the Commission to take Discretionary Review and require that the rebuilt of the sunroom in the rear not exceed the current footprint of the sunroom and the windscreen in the front not be constructed west of the westerly side of the existing chimney.

(+) Elizabeth Funk, Project Sponsor

- The first concern that her neighbors have is the windscreen. The windscreen they want would make the deck much safer for their toddler and it would protect them from the San Francisco wind. The windscreen will be made out of a glass type material so it will not block her neighbor's view. It is also made out of a self cleaning glass, which is more expensive, but this way it will minimize their view issues.

- The addition we are proposing will have less of an impact than other additions that have been built in the neighborhood.

- The second aspect is the rear sunroom at the back of the house. There is an already existing deck which was enclosed many years ago. They are proposing to finish enclosing the deck. The enclosure would be glass and because it is on the north it would not block sunlight to the neighbors.

- This particular area is not particularly significant. They are proposing to do something a little more significant to maintain aesthetics.

(+) Carol Potts

- She read a letter from a neighbor who is in support of this project but could not attend the hearing.

ACTION: Motion to not take Discretionary Review and approved the project.

AYES: Bradford Bell, Feldstein and S. Lee

NAYES: W. Lee

ABSENT: Antonini, Boyd and Hughes

RESULT: Motion Failed - There was no substitute motion. Without Commission action, the item was approved as submitted.

20a. 2004.0063D (G. CABREROS: (415) 558-6169)

141 WILLARD NORTH STREET - west side between Turk Street and Golden Gate Avenue; Lot 005 in Assessor's Block 1142 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of housing demolition, of Demolition Permit Application No. 2003.05.22.5283, proposing to demolish an existing two-unit building in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

141 WILLARD NORTH STREET - west side between Turk Street and Golden Gate Avenue; Lot 005 in Assessor's Block 1142 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of new residential buildings in association with residential demolitions, of Building Permit Application No. 2003.05.22.5280, proposing to construct a new four-story, two-unit building in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and disapprove the application.

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to May 6, 2004.

AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Feldstein, S. Lee, W. Lee

ABSENT: Boyd and Hughes

E. PUBLIC COMMENT

At this time, members of the public may address the Commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Commission except agenda items. With respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the Commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting with one exception. When the agenda item has already been reviewed in a public hearing at which members of the public were allowed to testify and the Commission has closed the public hearing, your opportunity to address the Commission must be exercised during the Public Comment portion of the Calendar. Each member of the public may address the Commission for up to three minutes.

The Brown Act forbids a commission from taking action or discussing any item not appearing on the posted agenda, including those items raised at public comment. In response to public comment, the commission is limited to:

(1) responding to statements made or questions posed by members of the public; or

(2) requesting staff to report back on a matter at a subsequent meeting; or

(3) directing staff to place the item on a future agenda. (Government Code Section 54954.2(a))

None

Adjournment: 7:46 p.m.

THESE MINUTES ARE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, April 8, 2004.

Members of the public are not required to provide personal identifying information when they communicate with the Commission or Department. All written or oral communications, including submitted personal contact information, may be made available to the public for inspection and copying upon request and may appear on the Department's website or in other public documents.